4 ms·
I don't know that it always leads to illegal forms of discrimination. First, defining the term -- when you're interviewing, you're discriminating. When you ch
by mdip 7y ago
I don't know that it always leads to illegal forms of discrimination.
First, defining the term -- when you're interviewing, you're discriminating. When you choose one person over another, you're discriminating between those two people. The question is whether or not the form of discrimination is legal, and accurate. Both should be true.
Looking at my own team as an example, there's a guy who's a mid-level who got his start from a boot-camp (30s), a 20-something with an advanced degree, an older[0] from (I think) Russia, we had an Iranian recently leave (for a better position -- she loved the job).
We're a relatively small shop (about 100 or so) but as someone who's given a lot of these interviews, and probably seen every resume of every candidate who came on to our team, we're pretty consistent. About 10-15% of the people who submit a resume are women, about 10-15% of our team is made up of women. Ethnic race/nationality matches up similarly. A shop our size "can't do more to recruit women" before we "do more to recruit ... human beings" We haven't enough budget to do much more than explain how great it is to be on our team[1], lay out the skillset we're looking for, and hope resumes show up[2].
[0] There's some form of -ism that keeps me from ever speculating on the age of a woman, but she is probably older than me.
[1] Yeah, that sounds buzz-wody, and there are lousy parts to any job, but there is so much upside to the work I do, the company (and people) I work for, that it's hard to contain my own enthusiasm for it. And no, we're not actively trying to make the world a better place by "insert thing that couldn't possibly impact the world in any meaningful way". We're just making neat things all day. It works for me -- might not work for everyone, but I include that last bit as part of the enthusiasm.
[2] Most of this is through anecdotal observation, not hard data, so I concede in advance that "I'm wrong on the Internet" :)
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoSounds like a cool place! Lets not go in the direction of semantics - discrimination used in this context has a clear meaning - penalizing a protected group. To hire folks that can be friends with the quorum, means excluding folks who can't. If systematically applied, it probably means excluding entire ethnic, economic or social classes. Ageism isn't a problem where you work - that's great. Nice upper-class educated people are doing well too - Iranian and Russian immigrants are generally like that. Assuming the women applicants are identically distributed as the men's (a huge assumption) then those statistics matching is a good sign. If we ignore that 50% of people are women I guess, and only 15% of applicants are. So many women leave our industry (don't know what industry your company is in) the applicant pool is already selected for those who can hack the bro culture. It takes 'affirmative action' to get real parity there. Hiring is hard, and I understand its an onus on the company to make efforts to find qualified minority candidates. But its also a reason to make an effort. Because there is a pool of overlooked candidates out there, who are not showing up in your middle-class neighborhood with resume in hand. Anyway, good luck!